Not sure if you’re being sarcastic or what. Of course everyone reads their articles without paying, and if they close that loophole then they will die a slow death like evey other site that chose that ancient pay for subscription model.

Quite the contrary, Ian, I am paying exactly what their labor is worth… nothing. If the quality of their articles or my need for their articles forced me to pay their asking price, then perhaps I would pay, but as it stands now, I either read them for free or don’t read them at all. And that’s basic capitalist principle of supply and demand.
—
They should embrace ad driven content or at least nurture their brand to the point where people would WANT to pay for better product … like Apple, Ferrari, Coca Cola etc.

Ian: His point is they allow the loophole because closing it would cause a DECREASE in $ for chron. They need eyeballs from their advertisers. That’s where the $ is at.
.
If they could get a few million more people to view for “free”, then whoever found a way to drive in that free loophole traffic would get a giant bonus.

two things, there’s no advertising beyond the chron paywall. they actually designed it so you could do exactly what is done, it even says it on the page when you view it
“FREE ACCESS VIEW

You’ve been granted free access to this Houston Chronicle article.”
it’s not my fault that the chron programmers don’t use cookies to tell how many times I use the free access view, and then shut me down after a certain number of attempts.

if someone charges entry into a club, but then leaves the back door unattended and open, with a sign above that says “free access” you better bet I’m going to keep going through that door until someone decides to close/lock it.